Reply With QuoteActually, "the tropics" are defined by the tilt of the planet, not the climate. Moving them closer together means reducing the tilt, which certainly changes the climate, but not in a simple "colder/hotter" overall way.
Images Attached below:
Ok, first let me say thanks again for all the advice. After thinking long and hard yesterday about how I wanted to proceed and after some limited research I came to the following conclusions (putting aside my serious river problems for the moment). I apologize in advance for my limited real cartographic knowledge and for any gross oversimplifications that may follow, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
-The area of the map using a Mercator projection with the "least" amount of distortion appears to be between 60 degrees N/S of the equator.
-On the Earth our primary population centers also appear between 60 degrees N/S of the equator. Furthermore, 60 degrees N/S of the equator on Earth appears to be the primary zone of habitability.
-On Earth the tropics are approximately 23.5 degrees N/S of the equator.
Taking these assumptions into account I have applied the following reasoning to my map.
-If my map's focus was narrowed to between approximately 62 degrees N/S of the equator I would have to worry less about extreme distortion.
-If I considered that my "planet" was of a generally colder climate than earth and that the "tropics" were limited to about 13 degrees N/S of the equator, less of the extreme north and south of my planet would be habitable; therefore justifying a map whose scope was more narrow. (As a side note a colder climate on the planet may be due to an ice age or mini ice age, which could also explain the lower sea levels and the increased percentage of land mass to water on Aetherworld, approx. 50/50, as compared to Earth.)
-If I have less to worry about as far as Mercator projection distortion due to the more narrowed focus of my map I could declare it a Mercator projection without stretching reality too far.
With those assumptions, and after the baby and the wife finally went to sleep, I was able to make some modifications to my map. I came up with two basic alternatives, both using Hai-Etlik's graciously provided svg files of Mercator long. and lat. lines and Rhumb Lines. Please review these and see if they make sense following the above logic. Let me know what you think. Also, if my logic makes sense let me know your preference visually between the Rhumb line and Lat./Long. versions of the map.
Oh, and per Ramah's suggestion I decreased the opacity of the country and continent borders. Finally, I have relocated my island continent further north to more align its climate with what I was imagining.
Attachments:
Photoshop World Map (Mercator Rhumb Lines) Thumbnail.jpg
Aetherworld, Mercator Projection, Rhumb Lines
Photoshop World Map (Mercator, Long and Lat) Thumbnail.jpg
Aetherworld, Mercator Projection, Lat. & Long. Graticules
Actually, "the tropics" are defined by the tilt of the planet, not the climate. Moving them closer together means reducing the tilt, which certainly changes the climate, but not in a simple "colder/hotter" overall way.
Of course you are correct good sir. I feel like smacking myself in the forehead. Tilt of the Earth equals seasonal changes and greatly affects the weather patterns here. In general I had imagined my planet with slightly less tilt, but I mistakenly did not associate that with the tropics. So a generally colder plan means that there will be generally colder tropics, not that the actual region on the map considered the tropics would change, as the tropics are determined by the natural tilt and "wobble" of the planet. Thanks for the correction. I feel like I might need to go back to fifth grade geography before posting another WIP.
Aside from that failure, do you see any other glaring logical fallacies, or am I a lost cause?
No, though you might want to simplify that rhumbline file before including it, I built it with far more components than should really be used on one map so that the bits you want can be deleted. In your case you may want to remove all of the roses and just move your rose to one of the intersection point.Originally Posted by wittyoctopus
I agree about the simplification of the Rhumb lines. I just did a quick copy and paste to get a general feel for how it would look. I apologize if this is a dumb question, but even if the other roses were not included you would still place their respective rhumb lines maintaining the same number of angles per section, correct? And no offense to your rhumb lines, they are quite spectacular, but if I do go that route I will most likely attempt to create my own rhumb lines, if for no other reason than for getting the practice.
Which map do you think looks better, from a purely aesthetic perspective?
Lovely looking map but as u mentioned the rivers desperately need fixing. All you need to do is cut out some sections so that each area has separate river basins, rather than continuous waterways that run coast to coast. Think of a river system like a tree - it starts with many small branches on high ground, each flowing together to form larger branches, which all come together in one main trunk which connects with the sea. It's rare for a to split into two separate rivers downstream.
Eg, It's fine having a river running from Nestalia to the sea at Shikelsiv, but those lakes in the mountains in Nestalia should be the start. Cut off the section that flows southward into Lesser Elusium and make those rivers separate. It's one of my biggest bug-bears of fantasy maps - rivers are like stories, they must have a beginning and an end!
Last edited by Robulous; 02-08-2012 at 05:57 PM.
Well, I just wrote a program to make them an the first place. You can find it here if you want http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...Line-Generator
The rhumb lines are probably the prettier option than the graticule. It's also good if you want to play up the marine aspects of the map and they look "older" for what that's worth.
Or if you really don't want to do your Doctorate in Cartography. Maybe you should start off defining your style and getting the basics of mapping rivers placement etc.down first. Before the advent of modern technologies maps were more guess work and rough reckoning. all projections are accurate only under certain circumstances. Even a globe is only mostly accurate the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. Where is the fun in a map that trades style and atmosphere for 21st century accuracy. IMHO !!
"Aye The skies be clear , the seas be calm and the winds be with us .....
ARGH!! but the damn compass be broken!! "
Capt. Noah Swalter Last voyage of the " Silver Crest"
Fair enough. As if you couldn't tell I was going for a more artistic style then straight realism. Still I wanted to have at least some legitimate foundation as to the proper projection since it is basically a world map, and since the graticules were the "easiest" thing to fix on this particular map I started there. Rivers are definitely next on the list. That will mainly be about going back and chopping up some rivers and adding elevation to make it feel within the grand rules, it's just those mountains don't draw themselves, unless of course you are using a GIMP image hose.
Oh, not quite true! The maps mariners used were quite accurate for their purpose - navigating the sea in a small sailboat without a compass. The global maps (e.g. the T-O maps), on the other hand, were more akin to thought diagrams than actual maps designed for navigation. At least that's what Terry Jones says in Mediaeval Lives: the Philosopher.
Posting Permissions
